Tribunal Upholds Information Commissioner's Decision in Chris Spiropoulos Case, Emphasizing the Standard of Proof in Information Rights Cases

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 957 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Chris Spiropoulos v Information Commissioner ([2023] UKFTT 00957 (GRC)), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) on Information Rights had to consider whether an appellant’s request for information had any reasonable prospects of success. This analysis will decipher the key issues adjudicated, stressing the legal principles applied and their implications for future cases in the realm of information law within the UK jurisdiction.

Key Facts

Chris Spiropoulos, the appellant, sought information relating to specific GoldFax logs from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The information pertained to transmissions received between 23rd September 2020 and 25th September 2020 relating to claim D97YM323. Upon investigation, the Information Commissioner decided that the MOJ did not hold the requested data. Aggrieved by this decision, Spiropoulos appealed, which led to the initial proceedings being struck out. Upon request for reevaluation by a judge, the underlying veracity of the Commissioner’s decision was once again assessed under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

The legal principles at the heart of this case flow from Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. This rule confers the authority to strike out proceedings if there is no reasonable prospect of the case, or any part of it, succeeding. The tribunal meticulously reviewed the evidence and the Information Commissioner’s inquiries, which included an examination of the MOJ’s case file mentioned in the request. It underscored the principle that the Tribunal’s role is not to uncover new evidence but to evaluate the existing investigation’s legitimacy conducted by the Information Commissioner.

The case also applied the principle of ‘balance of probabilities’, which is the standard of proof in civil cases. Here, the tribunal affirmed the Information Commissioner’s assessment that it was improbable that the MOJ held the requested information.

A pertinent caselaw reference arose with appeal number EA/2020/0347, wherein the appellant had made a similar request in the past that was also dismissed. In this previous case, Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West had refused an appeal with the finding that it was ‘totally without merit’. The linkage to case EA/2020/0347 provided a jurisprudential basis emphasizing consistent application of the Tribunal’s procedural rules and the high bar for overturning investigative conclusions in Information Rights cases.

Outcomes

The Tribunal, led by Judge Hazel Oliver, adjudicated that there was no reasonable prospect for the appeal to succeed. It concluded that the Information Commissioner’s decision was based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence and credible determination that the MOJ did not hold the pertinent information. As such, the request by Spiropoulos for the Information Commissioner to reconsider the information held was in essence futile, leading to the appeal being struck out.

Conclusion

The decision in Chris Spiropoulos v Information Commissioner serves as a steadfast example of the Tribunal’s commitment to uphold procedural rules and the importance of the standard of proof in civil proceedings on Information Rights. It reinforces the principle that appellants must provide substantial reasons for a tribunal to diverge from an Information Commissioner’s findings. For legal professionals in the UK, the case signifies that the Tribunal aligns with the Commissioner’s findings when challenges against them lack substantial merit, thereby upholding the efficiency and integrity of Information Rights law.